A view of the inner wall and guard towers of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in March 2004. A federal appeals court in Virginia is trying to decide whether a contractor who worked alongside soldiers at the Abu prison should be held liable for treatment detainees experienced there. (Michael Abrams/Stars and Stripes)

A federal appeals court in Virginia is trying to decide whether a company that worked alongside soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq should be held liable for treatment detainees experienced there.

At stake in the case, which has been in litigation for more than 17 years, is a potential $42 million payout that would be the most substantial penalty for the abuse delivered at Abu Ghraib since the public first learned of the scandal months after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.

At the center of the case is CACI Premier Technology, a Virginia-based defense contractor hired in 2003 by the U.S. government to provide civilian interrogators at Abu Ghraib. The company long has denied its employees took part or were responsible for the notorious events at the prison and repeatedly has moved to have the case dismissed.

Three Iraqi plaintiffs — a middle school principal, a fruit vendor and a journalist — have accused the contractor of conspiring with the U.S. military to torture detainees in violation of international laws. They said they experienced physical and psychological abuse at Abu Ghraib, including electrical shocks, food deprivation and threats of dog attacks.

All three eventually were released without being charged.

A federal jury last fall voted in favor of the men, delivering a verdict requiring CACI to pay $14 million to each plaintiff. The contractor appealed, and last month, both CACI and the plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, made oral arguments before a three-judge panel in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Unlike the federal government, which has sovereign immunity from these kinds of suits, contractors who work in war zones are considered private entities and are more vulnerable to legal challenges in cases of alleged misconduct, said Alex Sarria, a partner at the Washington D.C.-based law firm Miller and Chevalier with expertise in government contracts.

Sarria said it might come down to whether the contractor acted of its own accord when committing the alleged violations or if it can show that the plaintiffs are challenging actions taken at the direction of the U.S. government. If a contractor can show this, it may be entitled to some type of immunity.

Two former Iraqi prisoners hug each other after being released from Abu Ghraib prison, March 23, 2004. Three Iraqi plaintiffs have a case in the federal court system accusing a contractor of conspiring with the U.S. military to torture detainees in violation of international laws. (Michael Abrams/Stars and Stripes)

If the court upholds the $42 million payout, it might discourage contractors from following troops into battle or handling certain tasks for fear of liability, Sarria said.

“Ultimately, contractors will worry that they’ll be left holding the bag at the end of these contracts,” Sarria said.

During oral arguments, attorneys representing CACI argued contractors cannot be held responsible for actions they conducted at the behest of the U.S. military, especially when those actions didn’t occur on U.S. soil.

“This case involves injuries that occurred in Iraq. It involves an alleged conspiracy based entirely in Iraq. It holds CACI liable for the conduct of U.S. soldiers in a war zone,” said John O’Connor, a partner at the Washington D.C.-based firm Steptoe.

An attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights argued that CACI employees, including some in the U.S., knew about questionable interrogation tactics and took steps to cover them up. The plaintiffs’ attorney also argued that because the U.S. was occupying Iraq at the time, contractors were subject to U.S. law.

“What’s critical here is there was no foreign law in existence at the time the United States occupied Iraq,” attorney Baher Azmy told the panel of judges.

There’s also the issue of sensitive subject matter. Earlier in the litigation, the U.S. government intervened to remove evidence about interrogation under the State Secrets Privilege. Without that information, CACI’s lawyers argue they’ve been unable to fairly defend themselves.

“The state secrets privilege deprives the district court of much of its truth-seeking abilities,” O’Connor told judges.

Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, located about 20 miles outside Baghdad, was a notorious prison complex used by Saddam Hussein’s regime to detain, torture and execute dissidents.

It later was refurbished and used by the U.S. as a military prison site, holding thousands of criminal and security detainees.

Within months of troops taking control, images and accounts of inhumane treatment at the prison began to surface.

About a dozen soldiers were convicted of charges varying in degrees. Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, in charge of U.S. prisons in the country, received a demotion in rank. No others higher in the ranks were punished publicly. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried to resign twice over the scandal but was denied by President George W. Bush.

The court has no timeline to make a decision. And if one of the parties wants to challenge the verdict, it can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.